Msgr. Klaus Gamber on Consecration of the Wine

http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/MassNote.htm#TheWine
[with updated links - the links in the original document have expired]

If one can point to a, or perhaps the, most quarrelsome and problematic portion of the Novus Ordo, the 'new order' promulgated by Pope Paul VI (first in 1967, but for all The Church in 1969), it would have come down to the words for the consecration of the wine. I might say that those 'new orders' which do not depend upon English language, ICEList (or similar), phraseology may be exempt from the specific problem of the consecration, that is if the Latin is translated properly AND if the words conform in essence with that said by Our Lord at The Last Supper.

For many / For all:

Msgr. Klaus Gamber, in the Addendum, in his criticism of Paul VI's 'new order', called The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, makes the case that "for many" (pro multis) could never be fairly translated into "for all" (as Karl Keating's on-line Catholic Answers once rather blithely proclaimed it did; contradicting a passage from Trent, just below). That is, to positively equate all and many, essentially to claim pro omnibus means the same as pro multis, respectively, and beyond the common sense contradiction, and in the sacred and historical context here, and even if what may be a sedevacantist complaint that Pope Paul VI personally ordered this, it is yet absurd by the simple argument put forward there by Gamber essentially based on recorded tradition and Scriptural translations (until only just recently).

For many/for all goes to a perhaps confusing point, in these times. First, while this all refers to the consecration of the wine, it is no less entirely Our Lord in The Mass (if perhaps not 'new order') and, so, such arguments which apply to the consecration of the host would apply here. The separate consecrations are one, or none at all. The wine is instantly The Precious Blood, and entirely Our Lord. The host is confected before the wine, and instantly becomes the Body of Christ; again, no less the entire Christ, at the same time. Both together are, The Eucharist. If one fails in the consecration of the wine, it is not separate from the other in this, and so while the consecration of bread, itself, is valid, yet Our Lord is not The Sacrificial Victim, and there is no Mass; save, of course, for being victimized by the failure and whatever other sins accompany it. Even the revised Canon law of 1983 (for its possible flaws) says in Canon 927 that even in case of some unstated dire emergency, even then it's "absolutely wrong . . . to consecrate one element without the other".

Then to say Our Lord died for less than all Mankind would be to say some, we don't know who, are born without hope; that they were excluded from choosing salvation, by Our Lord. And that's not the case. Few may actually go to Heaven or Purgatory; terribly and frighteningly few. Few are predestined in the sense they are in the Book of Life. But all had, will have, and have that opportunity if they wish to avail themselves. [It's not so much that we can't know whose names are written in that book, but that those who are chose to be there, as God chose them to be there; that is, the predestination complaint tends to marginalize or eliminate the act of free will on our part, whereas The Church insists that's the one thing we actually do with our lives - as if to say that God knows, yet we chose.] In other words, Christ died for all men, but He did not remit all men's sins because all men, clearly, have not asked Our Lord to do so; that act of will is missing in so terribly many. That there is even a place called Hell says that some will not have their sins remitted, at the last, by their own choice.

Given that, Our Lord died for all men. That is - IT WILL BE SHED FOR ALL. It's not written like that. But assuming, all along, that this refers, principally, to Calvary, it might make sense this way (and which assumption appears to be the mistake and misunderstanding, or else the cynical innovation, of those who crafted this change in the consecration for 'new order').

So, and as just suggested above, the words of the consecration of the wine did refer to Calvary, in a manner of speaking. However, importantly, given the overloaded or multiple reference in Our Lord's words, the reference was really not to that of atoning for all men; the Atonement for all seems to have been assumed, straight out. Rather, Our Lord was referring, as He spoke and instituted the Unbloody Sacrifice at The Last Supper offering His Precious Blood, to the fruit of the Sacrifice on Calvary (and His Resurrection); to Life; to Heaven; to those specifically who chose and were chosen - the "you", the Apostles remaining at the Last Supper, and the "many", the rest of the elect, the saints, gentile and Jew, who would follow; that is - The true Church; The Roman Catholic Church, as Pope Pius XII wrote "13. If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church . . ." [Pius XII, Mystical Body of Christ, encyclical, 1943] Our Lord did not suffer and die only for the elect, but for all men. But the words of the consecration go to the Sacrament, and refer to the elect, exclusively [Heb 9:28, John 17:9, Mark 14:24, 10:45, Matt 26:28]. In other words, the words of the consecration refer to the fruits of Our Lord's Sacrifice, which The Eucharist and the Sacrament of Holy Communion, while enabled by Our Lord's once for all Holocaust, these words do not refer to the Atonement, the Holocaust, primarily, but to the Sacrament, the object of the Sacrament, and those who receive.

That is, if 'new order' were real, and true to what it apparently suggests in insisting that the word, all, be inserted, it would read, but would ONLY read - IT WILL BE SHED FOR ALL. That's not a Sacrifice. That's not a Sacrament. That's not enough. And it's not how Our Lord said it, or meant it, when it came to the consecration of the wine (as seen in Aquinas, below). And also, as noted above, unless ALL refers, in some pointlessly vague way, only to all who are truly members of Christ's Church, actual and devout Catholics, which would seem contrary to the intention of those who created 'new order', this form would, at best, recall only Calvary, and would not suggest that the sins of those who are unrepentant and enemies of The Church will be remitted, as they are not; that is, no mention of the remission of sins, at all. No mention of the fruit of that labor. It's would be an affirmation, but a pure Protestant memorial (and even Cranmer was not sufficiently bold to 'go there').

As for what we find in the catechism, it comes after Trent fixed the liturgy to correct for abuses and experiments which were introduced with ad hoc changes in The Mass, at the time. And the catechism of Trent (called, generically, the 'Roman Catechism'), contains this:

From Part II: The Sacraments, under the Explanation of the Form to be Used for the Consecration of the Wine:

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (Our Lord) said: "For you", He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, . . . [on-line Catechism of Trent]

Now it must also be pointed out that this is no different than what Aquinas wrote in the Summa.

Part III: Summa Theologica

Question 60, Art. 8: . . . if any substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, . . . the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the sacrament is invalid. Wherefore Didymus says (De Spir. Sanct. ii): "If anyone attempt to baptize in such a way as to omit one of the aforesaid names," i.e. of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, "his baptism will be invalid." . . . [or] it is possible to add something that destroys the essential sense . . . if one were to say: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father Who is greater, and of the Son Who is less," with which form the Arians baptized: and consequently such an addition makes the sacrament invalid. . . . [or] if the intention be to baptize in the name of the Blessed Virgin as in the name of the Trinity [e.g. "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary,"], by which baptism is consecrated: for such a sense would be contrary to faith, and would therefore render the sacrament invalid." Question 78, Art. 3: . . . Some have maintained that the words "This is the chalice of My blood" alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, . . . all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, "As often as ye shall do this," which belong to the use of this sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form. . . . by the first words, "This is the chalice of My blood," the change of the wine into blood is denoted, as explained above (Art. 2) in the form for the consecration of the bread; but by the words which come after is shown the power of the blood shed in the Passion, which power works in this sacrament, . . . the blood consecrated apart expressly represents Christ's Passion, and therefore mention is made of the fruits of the Passion in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body, since the body is the subject of the Passion. This is also pointed out in Our Lord's saying, "which shall be delivered up for you," as if to say, "which shall undergo the Passion for you." . . . [And] the word "mystery" is inserted, not in order to exclude reality, but to show that the reality is hidden, because Christ's blood is in this sacrament in a hidden manner, and His Passion was dimly foreshadowed in the Old Testament. . . . The blood of Christ's Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, to whom the blood of the Old Testament was exhibited, but also in the Gentiles; nor only in priests who consecrate this sacrament, and in those others who partake of it; but likewise in those for whom it is offered. And therefore He says expressly, "for you," the Jews, "and for many," namely the Gentiles; or, "for you" who eat of it, and "for many," for whom it is offered. Question 79, Art. 7: . . . it is said in the Canon of the Mass: "Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy servants, men and women . ." . . And Our Lord expressed both ways, saying (Mt. 26:28, with Lk. 22:20): "Which for you," i.e. who receive it, "and for many," i.e. others, "shall be shed unto remission of sins." . . . As Christ's Passion benefits all, for the forgiveness of sin and the attaining of grace and glory, whereas it produces no effect except in those who are united with Christ's Passion through faith and charity, so likewise this sacrifice, which is the memorial of Our Lord's Passion, has no effect except in those who are united with this sacrament through faith and charity. Hence Augustine says to Renatus (De Anima et ejus origine i): "Who may offer Christ's body except for them who are Christ's members?" Hence in the Canon of the Mass no prayer is made for them who are outside the pale of the Church.

After dismissing the seemingly casual, but careful substitution of, all, for many, Gamber then takes a different tack on the reference of the Blood being shed, or poured out; the more temporized sense that it refers to those at that Mass, that day, receiving it. That's just to say that the reference is not principally to the once for all Sacrifice, but to its fruits - that which it enabled. In this he clearly agrees with Aquinas, with Trent, even for disagreeing on tense, which he bases on a single letter of a single word, covered in the next section, below. It's not the future tense of shedding Blood, he argues, but rather that the words of the consecration more properly refer to the immolation in The Mass, to Our Lord's Precious Blood - it IS shed, present tense. Trent says Our Lord looked to the fruit of His Sacrifice - The Eucharist and His One True Church. They understood The Eucharist precisely as Gamber, but understood the actual words to refer to something also beyond any particular Mass, again as did Aquinas. It is both a Sacrifice, and a Sacrament. Yet, there's no reason to think he'd disagree with the broader picture of the catechism, or of Trent, but that it simply wasn't his point in the addendum to look at anything other than the sense IT WILL BE, or IS, SHED, refers to the Unbloody Sacrifice, not to the Atonement on Calvary for all men. The irony, of course, is that while whatever defenders of 'new order' say of the equivalency of "all" and "many", which are not the same, the present and future tense of to shed, or pour out, can be treated the same.

For all that, it would appear that the words of consecration used in 'new order' are simply not those guaranteed by Trent, but in fact are just the opposite and precisely what was warned against. There remains, however, one more take on this. 'New order' has it - FOR YOU AND FOR ALL. But it continues - SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN. Now, leaving aside whether remission is the same as mere forgiveness, which it is not, the word, MAY, seems confusing, and perhaps gives support to defenders of 'new order', such as there may be. They might argue that if it read "for you and for many" that it gives the sense of which not everyone's sins are merely forgiven, even (that it's merely 'enabling language', or some such). But it does read, all, and the sense of MAY is vague and given to different contradictory meanings. So it could easily be read as indifferent to the need for any Sacrament. That is, MAY, but it doesn't say how (or for who, or for sure). It's a research question, a doubt, not a certainty, not a promise. It's to say Our Lord was unclear and imprecise when He said this, even to suggest that He was guessing. The answer to that is obvious.

So if the Atonement enables the remission of sins by the grace of Holy Communion, which in addition aids in attaining to holiness the believer who receives worthily, then more must be said to formally and structurally refer to such a Sacrament, and Unbloody Sacrifice. In fact, and to show the need for just that, the clause - THE MYSTERY OF FAITH - has been omitted from the words of consecration of the wine in 'new order', which suggests that is was never intended in 'new order' for the wine to become Our Lord. That suggestion, in this context, and that above, is not a trivial thing! That clause was an anchor for referring to the present Sacrament, itself, in The Mass. The Mystery is the Unbloody Sacrifice and Sacrament, mysteriously unseen but known by faith; even though outwardly it still looks the same as before, and confuses those who don't believe, as the Protestant, that nothing has changed.